If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The issue is not whether insurance will or will not pay for an abortion. The issue is whether or not I must contribute to a fund that pays for abortions. Currently I do. However, I have the choice of doing so...or not. Under the plan being discussed in the House, I won't have that choice.

Eric

Sir; with respect, would you accept an initiative from a religious group to remove taxpayer funding for blood transfusions? There are many who would rather die than submit to this common life saving procedure? Some decisions are best left to the Doctor and patient for the good of all our interests.

power without lumber, raciness without weediness

A big man never looks down on others.... instead, he is someone to look up to.

"Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?"

Gallup asks:

With respect to bills, Gallup asks a different question and gets still a different result.

When pressed to express an opinion, a small majority favor passage and about 10% less oppose passage.

On the issue of who to trust in structuring health care, the answers become more interesting:

In the final analysis, independents remain almost evenly divided on issues of health care. Democrats favor passage very strongly, and Republicans oppose passage very strongly. The votes in Congress are most likely to reflect this reality. A Democrat voting against reform will likely lost the support of their base and will not get any more votes from Republicans. Similarly, a Republican voting for reform would lose support from their base ad still not win support from Democrats. That pretty much says that the vote will follow partisan lines and, if the Democrats hold together, will pass. Whether reform passes or not, I suspect that Democrats will lose seats in 2010. I suspect they will lose more seats if the fail to pass reform than they will if they succeed.

Actually, it's not an issue of moral equivalency at all. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a completely legal medical procedure. For as long as that is true, it has the same status as any other medical procedure, whether that be a tonsillectomy or a heart bypass. For those who believe that abortions are a form of murder, the answer is simple -- convince enough people to change the law and it can be driven back into the alleys where our children can risk their futures and their lives to end pregnancies with which they cannot live. Personally, I remember the pre-Roe v. Wade world too well to ever want to see it return.

However, as long as the procedure remains legal, one should be careful about which approaches are used in efforts to make it more difficult. For each such road sets a precedent that will inevitably be used against some other procedure in the future. Maybe the next target will be birth control or sterilization procedures, or maybe even child birth expenses for any more than ten (nine, eight, seven....) children because why should we all have to subsidize the irresponsible profligacy of the few?

To try to frame abortion as just a "legal medical procedure” is a bit silly.

When considering first term and even second term abortions, I expect the case could be made that it is just a legal medical procedure.

But, when considering a third term viable fetus it isn't as simple as that.

subroc

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To try to frame abortion as just a "legal medical procedure” is a bit silly.

When considering first term and even second term abortions, I expect the case could be made that it is just a legal medical procedure.

But, when considering a third term viable fetus it isn't as simple as that.

There are very few third trimester abortions being performed anywhere and most that are performed that late are not elective. There is also an absolute legal mandate to preserve the life of any viable fetus. The attack is on first and second trimester abortions using the imagery of something that almost never happens. Personally, I would have no problems with a law that limited abortions to the first 20-21 weeks of pregnancy except in cases where the procedure was essential to protect the life and health of the mother. Currently, about 1.4% of abortions fall into this category. About 0.08% occur at 24 weeks or later (~1000/year), the point at which a fetus might potentially be viable.

There are very few third trimester abortions being performed anywhere and most that are performed that late are not elective. There is also an absolute legal mandate to preserve the life of any viable fetus. The attack is on first and second trimester abortions using the imagery of something that almost never happens. Personally, I would have no problems with a law that limited abortions to the first 20-21 weeks of pregnancy except in cases where the procedure was essential to protect the life and health of the mother. Currently, about 1.4% of abortions fall into this category. About 0.08% occur at 24 weeks or later (~1000/year), the point at which a fetus might potentially be viable.

Sir; with respect, would you accept an initiative from a religious group to remove taxpayer funding for blood transfusions? There are many who would rather die than submit to this common life saving procedure? Some decisions are best left to the Doctor and patient for the good of all our interests.

Does a blood transfusion strip the right to life away from a human being?

For those who think legality means something is morally acceptable I might remind you that you continually point out the state of race relations in this country in the past. It was legal at one time for one man to own another. Are you prepared to say that it was then correct and moral for them to do so?

It happens to be legal for people to murder the unborn. It is neither correct nor moral. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that is at the root of all that is wrong in this country. A bill that is coming due.